MA Thesis Summary

My
MA thesis at Komazawa University was written in Japanese with the
following title:

法蔵の『梵網経菩薩戒本疏』に於ける価値観とその背景

"A
Study of Ethics in Fazang's Commentary on the Brahma Net Sūtra
and its Background."

The
Brahma Net Sūtra梵網經
became the basis
for bodhisattva precepts in East Asia from the fifth century onward.
A number of major commentaries were written on the text and
specifically with respect to the bodhisattva precept set therein. The
Huayan patriarch Fazang 法藏
(643-712) wrote the
Fanwangjing Pusa Jieben Shu梵網經菩薩戒本疏
(T1813), a
commentary on the precepts. It is a unique guide to early Tang
aristocratic Buddhism and its values. Fazang's flexible
interpretation is realistic albeit perhaps tailored for state
officials who inevitably had to compromise on personal Buddhist
values, especially when employing violence or maintaining a military
or guard. The text was quite influential with later commentators
across East Asia, marking it as one of the most important classical
interpretations of the Brahma Net Sūtra.

My
work drew on research by past scholars primarily includingYoshizu
Yoshihide 吉津宜英
(Kegon
Ichijō Shisō no Kenkyū華厳一乗思想の研究;
1991), Ishii Kōsei 石井公成
(Kegon
Shisō no Kenkyū華厳思想の研究;
1996) and Chen Jinhua (Philosopher,
Practitioner, Politician: the Many Lives of Fazang;
2007).
I did a detailed reading of the text, paying particular attention to
the noteworthy features as pointed out by the aforementioned
scholars. I was further able to ascertain links to other texts by
using the search feature on CBETA, which uncovered areas of Fazang's
text which had been directly copied from earlier works, often without
citation. I examined the relevant sections from the texts Fazang
employed while furthermore identifying some of his stated ideas in
the Chinese classics, such as the Liji禮記.

In order to
place Fazang's text within its historical and textual context, I drew
on a number of modern works, most notably Satō Tatsugen 佐藤達玄,
Chūgoku Bukkyō ni Okeru Kairitsu no
Kenkyū中国仏教における戒律の研究
[Research
on the Precepts-Vinaya in China]
(Tokyo: Mokujisha木耳社,
1986) and Mori Shōji 森章司,
Kairitsu no Sekai 戒律の世界
[The
World of Precepts-Vinaya] (Keisuisha
溪水社,
1993). Aside from bodhisattva precepts, the history of the
conventional bhikṣu Vinaya had to be addressed, specifically with
respect to its influence or lack thereof in Mahāyānist treatises by
Chinese authors. Commonalities between some of Fazang's ideas and
secular law codes were addressed. I also considered Fazang's work in
the greater context of Huayan thought and exegesis, especially with
respect to Fazang's own teacher Zhiyan 智儼
(the
second patriarch of Huayan in China).

One of Fazang's motivations for
writing the text was a dissatisfaction with commentaries by other
scholars, such as that of the Silla monk Seungjang 勝莊
(student of
Woncheuk 圓測,
wrote much on Yogācāra). It also seems probable that the commentary
was compiled based on Fazang's lectures, especially in light of the
presence of vernacular terms in the text. Fazang also visibly borrows
from earlier authors, such as the earlier Vinaya masters Daoxuan 道宣
(specifically,
Daoxuan's dichotomy of edifying teachings 化教
and practical
teachings 行教;
Fazang calls the latter disciplinary teachings 制教)
and Fali 法礪
(the ideas of
inherent evils 性惡
and hidden evils
遮性;
additionally, Fazang plagiarizes Fali's work directly without
citation).

One
striking feature of the text is Fazang's comments on the potential
permissibility of killing in extreme situations, such as when ending
the life of an individual intent on mass killing or the slaying of a
noble being. Such ideas are primarily cited from the Yogācārabhūmi
Śāstra and thereafter
justified under certain extreme conditions. Fazang also cautiously
explains that killing someone to avenge the death of one's parents is
to only be classed as a minor transgression, which reflects classical
Chinese values as presented especially in the Liji.
Here we see the precepts clearly adapted to Chinese values.

Additionally,
with respect to the storing of weapons, Fazang consents to it if it
is “to defend the Buddhadharma or to placate sentient beings.”
Consequently, “if a Bodhisattva sees others owning [weapons], he
encourages them to destroy them. If his encouragement is
unsuccessful, he should beg or trade for them. If he still is unable
to obtain them, then he should use coercion, threats and so on and
obtain them. He must stop them [from keeping the weapons].” His
remark about “placating sentient beings” (調伏眾生)
suggests affirmation of contemporary political realities among the
elites who inevitably had to employ violence to ensure order or the
authority of their own regime.

Fazang
also affirms the social order of his day when judging the severity of
a transgression based on the victim, which incidentally shows
similarities to laws provided in the secular Tang legal codes. For
example, with respect to selling slaves, he considers it worse to
sell a free commoner into slavery than selling an already enslaved
individual. Such a differentiation in severity level with respect to
selling people into slavery is also found in secular law codes,
specifically the Tanglü Shuyi唐律疏議.
This indicates that both in secular law codes and Buddhist ethics of
this time the issues arising from slave trade were being discussed,
though the validity of the institution of slavery itself was not
called into question.

One other noteworthy feature of
the text is Fazang's utilization of Sanskrit-based compound
classifications which he employs when interpreting terms in Chinese.
For instance, he defines the term fanwang梵網
(Brahma Net) as if
it were a karma-dhāraya持業釋,
tat-puruṣa依主釋
or bahu-vrīhi
有財釋.
While Fazang cannot be credited with being the first known writer in
China to do this, it does perhaps say something of his apparent
understanding of Sanskrit and moreover it may indicate that in his
time there was a certain degree of affinity for these classifications
amongst Buddhist intellectuals.

With
respect to dating the text, as Fazang quotes the Buddhabhadra 佛馱跋陀
translation of the
Avataṃsaka Sūtra (translated around 420), it therefore can
be assumed he wrote this commentary prior to 699 when Śikṣānanda
實叉難陀
completed his new
translation of said sūtra, a project that Fazang himself
participated in. Moreover, Fazang in the text is identified with
Weiguoxi-si 魏國西寺,
where he purportedly composed the commentary. Said temple was named
as such between 687-690. In light of Fazang's movements as suggested
by Chen Jinhua (2007), I tentatively date the text to 687.

The text includes detailed
explanations of the ten major 十重禁戒
and forty-eight
minor bodhisattva precepts 四十八輕戒.
Fazang interprets each precept from ten hermeneutic approaches: the
meaning of the regulation 制意,
its ordering in relation to other precepts 次第,
interpretation of the name of the precept 釋名,
requisite conditions for violation 具緣,
potentially lacking conditions (which would entail no violation) 闕緣,
severity 輕重,
karmic consequences to be suffered for violation 得報,
exceptions 通塞,
correction 對治
and the
interpretation of the text 釋文.
The commentary curiously does not refer to Fazang's famous doxography
of five teachings 五教.
There are also few references to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra華嚴經,
yet more references to non-Huayan texts such as the
MahāprajñāpāramitāUpadeśa大智度論
and the
Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra.

Taken
altogether, the commentary is a unique and influential guide to the
Brahma Net Sūtra from the
early Tang. It digests earlier ideas on the bodhisattva precepts
while introducing Fazang's own pragmatic approach, informed by the
Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra,
classical Chinese values, and perhaps contemporary law codes. The
text is a window into intellectual currents and approaches with
respect to Buddhist ethics in Fazang's time. It also became widely
read in East Asia, influencing other authors and becoming one of the
most important interpretations of the Brahma Net Sūtra.